Politics & Government Dr. Madsen Pirie Politics & Government Dr. Madsen Pirie

Well deserved honour for Michael Howard

5255
well-deserved-honour-for-michael-howard

The Rt Hon Michael Howard, former Conservative leader, has been given a peerage. It is richly deserved. He served in the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Employment, then the Environment, and then Home Secretary. He was elected leader of the Conservative Party late in 2003, and managed to unite it in time to fight a creditable election campaign in 2005, shrinking Labour's majority by over 100, and bringing victory within range. He thus laid the groundwork for the defeat of Labour in the 2010 election.

Michael Howard was an early supporter of Margaret Thatcher, and has been a firm supporter of market economics, which he has always combined with an intuitive understanding of the British constitution and traditions. His training as a QC brought a forensic touch to his House of Commons and ministerial skills, and he has won high praise as an effective administrator.

He has been a good friend of the Adam Smith Institute over the years, always ready to give courteous attention to our proposals, and has been a frequent guest at ASI functions. He was popular at TNG meetings, several of which he attended.

The ASI congratulates Michael Howard on his elevation to the peerage, and wishes him well in his new role.
 

Read More
Politics & Government Dr. Madsen Pirie Politics & Government Dr. Madsen Pirie

The Queen's speech subtext

5226
the-queens-speech-subtext

There were no surprises in the content of the Queen's Speech, since it had been widely leaked in the Sunday papers. The surprise was in the subtext. Some had expected a hesitant, cobbled-together production by a government looking to the short term. Instead it had all the hallmarks of a government that expects to be around for the long term.

Only two weeks ago people thought the coalition might be short-lived, with a second election coming before the year's end. The Queen's Speech outlined a radical programme from a government that expects to deliver. The bills trailed in it are big meaty ones that will transform Britain and the way it is run. The Education Bills could finally create schools that parents value, while the Great Repeals Bill offers excellent scope to undo a significant part of the Big Brother state that was foisted upon us.

The Parliamentary Reform Bill could give us a leaner, more representative House of Commons and a wholly new House of Lords. Fixed terms diminish the power of Prime Ministers, and recall procedures allow for some comeback on MPs who abuse. All in all, it is a radical, even bold, set of proposals from a government which clearly thinks it is going to last.

The brave new dawn of the Blair administration did not deliver all that much, but this partnership thrown together in haste and necessity might actually end up delivering more valuable and lasting reforms.

Read More
Politics & Government Jan Boucek Politics & Government Jan Boucek

Let Sleeping Dogs Lie

5213
let-sleeping-dogs-lie

Sometimes the best action a government can take is no action at all. So it is with the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition’s publication earlier this week with its “Programme for Government”. The plan of action includes 31 subjects from Banking through Europe to Universities and Further Education. Conspicuous by its absence is any specific section on Housing.

This is a good thing and hopefully a recognition that the root cause of the global credit crunch and subsequent Great Recession was the bursting of massive housing bubbles, starting in the US but quickly spreading to the UK, Ireland, Spain and others. By its silence, the Con-Lib coalition is staying away from that minefield. Yes, there’s a handful of innocuous proposals in the Programme’s Communities and Local Government section such as exploring a range of measures to bring empty homes into use, promoting shared ownership schemes and creating trusts that will make it simpler for communities to provide homes for local people. But these don’t amount to any clarion call for the masses to buy in and trade up.

Thankfully, there’s no wild John Prescott-type targets for millions of new homes across the land and no housing-specific tax changes. Most mercifully, the document has taken up this blog’s suggestion last week to banish the use of the term “housing ladder.” More than anything, Britain’s housing sector needs a period of benign neglect to find its own equilibrium. Dave, Nick, resist any temptations to fiddle about here.

A decline in the UK home ownership rate from its current 70% should channel savings into actually productive investments rather than merely inflating paper measures of personal wealth. And it should increase mobility as people are more able to relocate to where the jobs are. Germany seems to be housing its people just fine with a home ownership rate of around 50% and some people here in the UK may discover they actually prefer a renter’s lifestyle free from home repairs, insurance costs and tedious dinner party chat about house prices.

By contrast, the US is incorrectly adopting a do-nothing strategy regarding its own housing sector. The financial reform legislation now ploughing through Congress hits all the populist anti-banking symptoms but ignores the disease itself. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two gargantuan federal agencies that did more to fuel the housing bubble than anything else, are yet to be reformed.

Read More
Politics & Government Charlotte Bowyer Politics & Government Charlotte Bowyer

Forcing reform

5215
forcing-reform-

Though far from perfect, the Coalition manifesto contains a pleasingly consistent commitment to transfer power away from central government and towards individuals, communities and local levels of government. Pre-election rhetoric has transformed into solid policy commitments, forming the basis for a refreshingly ‘liberal’ government after years of statist Labour control.

One area of reform looks set to be policing, as Theresa May’s speech at the Police Federation annual conference confirmed. After insisting that “I’m not interested in running the police”, May vowed to cut down the health and safety laws and the level of paperwork that the police are currently constrained by, through measures such as abolishing the stop and search form. Another positive idea was to give the police the power to charge suspects for a wider range of minor crimes. At present, charging decisions are made by the Crown Prosecution Service, for whom the police must prepare detailed case files, even in the case of a guilty plea. Securing a go-ahead from the CPS can be a lengthy process, while their ‘conviction rate‘ targets mean they can be more interested in scoring easy convictions then pursuing serious, but more hazy cases. Returning some charging powers to the police would give them greater responsibility, while cutting costs and hugely freeing up police time.

May also signaled that under the Coalition government, there would be transfer of power from Whitehall to local communities in regards to police accountability. This would be done by cutting Key Performance Indicators, political gimmicks and the creation of directly-elected local police commissioners, who would hopefully replace the useless and toothless Local Police Authority quangos. Such a figure would bring better accountability to local forces, forge closer links between citizens and police and remove the need for central government micromanagement. Some people have criticized this move, believing it to be a politicization of the police that will result in hardline populist policies forced upon them. However, it is ridiculous to argue that crime and the ways to address it are not political issues. As it stands, the police are already subject to incessant political meddling from the Home Office- which a local police commissioner would remove. The government must stand strong to enforce this transformative policy, which would give communities a unique and tailored policing plan and the police true accountability to the public whilst retaining their operational independence.

Read More
Politics & Government Tim Ambler Politics & Government Tim Ambler

Regulation: LibCon Learning Disabilities

5211
regulation-libcon-learning-disabilities

In their last six years in opposition, the Tories produced no less than four shadow green papers on how they would tackle regulation and de-regulation. Each began with a blank sheet and demonstrated that each set of authors had learned little or nothing from their predecessors nor from the experience of the current administration, nor the one before.

Some of us would like to imagine that policy develops continuously, integrating experience, research evidence and the discussion of new ideas. We have previously suggested that a one or two year moratorium on new UK regulation would allow learning to take place and break the Whitehall culture of regulation. EU regulation would of course continue, but the UK should not regulate at all in areas the EU regulates. It simply burdens UK business relative to the rest of Europe. If they don’t need it, why should we? So a moratorium on UK regulation is perfectly feasible.

The coalition agreement is a new set of patent nostrums, ungrounded in experience or debate. The shadow regulation minister, John Penrose, no longer has that portfolio and although the new minister, Mark Prisk, was shadow regulation minister a while back, he did not author any of the four shadow green papers.

It is great to see the back of some of the earlier ideas, like having Professor Richard Thaler replacing regulation by nudging, but some old hobby horses, like the gold plating myth, remain. Sunset clauses will be required but the previous administration said that too but they didn’t deliver. I’ll bet the coalition does not know why it failed even if they know it did. Much more important are post implementation reviews to establish if the regulations worked at all. They should happen, but don’t, and there’s no mention of that.

On the other hand, they propose to dive into corporate reporting which the Financial Reporting Council and Accounting Standards Board are actually developing very well. What happened to small government/Big Society?

They are ill-informed on new business set-ups. One of Brown’s successes was to make the UK one of the easiest countries to set up new business. And the coalition’s section on financial regulatory reform seems to be unaware that New Labour handed that over to Brussels.

From a strong field, the motherhood prize goes to “We will review employment and workplace laws, for employers and employees, to ensure they maximise flexibility for both parties while protecting fairness and providing the competitive environment required for enterprise to thrive.” How on earth can that be achieved by regulation? No doubt they will set up a commission to bring that about – chaired by Willie Walsh.

Read More
Politics & Government Dr. Eamonn Butler Politics & Government Dr. Eamonn Butler

Emasculating the 1922 Committee

5206
emasculating-the-1922-committee

I'm no Tory, but many Conservatives I spoke to at a function last night are very alarmed at what's going on with the 1922 Committee. The 1922 is the grouping of backbench Tory MPs, which (since 1923, actually) has always represented the views of the rank and file in Parliament to the leadership.

Now there is a plan to allow ministers to attend and speak at the 1922, which would of course completely rob it of its robustness and independence. If backbenchers thought that ministers (and whips) were keeping an eye on them as they discussed Party policy, there would be no free discussion at all.

The leadership's argument is that shadow ministers attended the 1922 when the Tories were in Opposition, so what is the problem? But the fact is that when you are in government, things are entirely different. The Prime Minister and the Executive in the UK have huge powers, including powers of patronage. If they were admitted into private backbench discussions, MPs would hardly dare to raise disagreements with the leadership, as they would when in Opposition.

Worse, it seems that the new, tenderfoot MPs have been whipped to vote for the leadership's proposal.

But frankly, what business is it of the leadership how the 1922 manages its affairs? The whole point is that it is an independent voice of backbenchers.

One can argue that a rise in Capital Gains Tax, or a referendum on Alternative Vote, or any of the other dubious policies, are a matter of agreement between coalition partners and so there has to be a bit of give and take. But the 1922 is an entirely Tory affair. It is the leadership that is trying to lay down the rules and emasculate the backbenchers. It is the worst kind of central control. The kind of centralism we were supposed to have put behind us. This is alarming.

For more information on this check out Jonathan Isaby's blog here. 

Read More
Politics & Government Tim Worstall Politics & Government Tim Worstall

On laughing like a drain

5188
on-laughing-like-a-drain

I've said before around here that political economics is, perhaps, like generals. Everyone's ready to fight (and win!) the last war. But there's an element of not realising that times, tactics, technologies, have changed, and that what might win the last war won't win this one. Whether that war is upon the Hun or upon unemployment:

What happened? Big government -- spending, that is -- ran into good government -- regulation, competitive bidding, environmental safeguards, the works. "To be shovel-ready is much more complicated now than it was in 1933," says Laura Chick, the former Los Angeles city controller (and a liberal Democrat) whom Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed as the state's inspector general of stimulus spending. "Environmental-impact reviews, historic-preservation safeguards, unionization of government workers -- these are good things, but they've changed the way government can operate. Plus which, the federal government said, 'We'll give you a ton of money, and we want you to spend it faster -- and better.' There are no exemptions from regulations that came with the stimulus funds. They didn't waive the requirement for competitive bidding; they stressed competitive bidding."

The very growth of government means that growing government cannot be used to solve our current problems, even as the growth of government solved some past ones.

We cannot have "shovel ready", high labour content digging of roads and railways because we've put in place so many rules about how we we should build roads and railways.

For that very growth of government has meant that we cannot do what Keynes suggested, simply employ people to do things marginally  valuble, for government does not allow such.

Me, I'm laughing like a drain.

Read More
Politics & Government Nigel Hawkins Politics & Government Nigel Hawkins

Coalition Casualties

5172
coalition-casualties

Beneath all the euphoria of the UK’s new Coalition, serious doubts lurk both about its longevity and about its economic policies. Despite all the mood music, the reality is that the determination to tackle the UK’s vast public sector deficit – of £163 billion – has been materially diluted. After all, a Conservative Government - with a decent majority - would have been able to address this issue with Thatcherlike zeal.

To date, the UK has managed to avoid serious problems in funding such a massive deficit. But the financial risks remain high. After all, economic growth of just 1% per year until 2014/15 – and a lacklustre effort to cut public expenditure – would push the UK’s PSND/GDP ratio to c.100%. Such a figure is widely regarded as being very dangerous. Remember, too, that even during the 1979-90 Thatcher years, there were actually modest real increases in public expenditure, despite her herculean efforts to cut it.

A second casualty may be new nuclear-build. The Coalition appears to ‘agree to disagree’ on this issue – some Liberal Democrats have passionate anti-nuclear views. Even if the Labour Party continues to back new nuclear-build, potential investors may be frightened off. In any event, the two most likely investors – France’s EDF and Germany’s E.On – are both running very high financial deficits and are actually seeking to sell assets rather than undertake additional investment. Interestingly, there have been recent suggestions that, despite EU legislation, the life of some of the UK’s coal-fired plants may be extended to bridge the generation shortfall which will arise within a few years.

Finally, the planned third runway at Heathrow is an obvious Coalition casualty. In fact, other airport projects, including one at Lisbon, are now being deferred on costs grounds as economic reality kicks into the EU.

As Harold Wilson said ‘a week is a long time in politics’. Vindicated again?

Read More
Politics & Government Tom Clougherty Politics & Government Tom Clougherty

Reflections on the coalition agreement

Non-business capital gains will be taxed at or near to the same rates as ordinary income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.

It isn’t entirely clear what this means but regardless, raising taxes on capital and investment when you are trying to encourage economic growth isn’t terribly sensible. The fact that this measure will only apply to non-business assets and will be subject to major exemptions may stop this tax hike being too damaging, but the devil is in the detail. Generally though, raising capital taxes is counter-productive – CGT is the tax that tends to exhibit the strongest laffer curve effects, and I’ve seen research suggesting that c.15% is the revenue maximising rate – more than that and you just change people’s behaviour.

Inheritance tax cut kicked into the long grass. Lib Dems allowed to abstain on transferable tax allowances for married couples. Air Passenger Duty will be charged on a per-plane, rather than per-passenger basis.

All this was expected. The transferable allowance is small beer, and the changes to Air Passenger Duty are, in themselves, unobjectionable. It is still my view that inheritance tax is unjust and ought to be abolished, but it is understandable that this is not seen as a priority.

An independent commission to review public sector pensions will be set up (accrued rights will be protected). The basic state pension will rise in line with earnings, prices or by 3.5% from April 2011 – whichever is highest.

Good that public sector pensions are being reviewed, but that may just be used as an opportunity to bury a potentially very unpopular issue. As for the state pension, I’m all in favour of dignity for the elderly and agree that the current state pension is rather pitiful. But the question is, are spending commitments like this affordable? And will the government introduce measures to shift the UK to a funded pension system, rather than a PAYGO one? We desperately need to address our long-term age-related liabilities, but I don’t see much sign of that happening at the moment.

A levy on the banks will be introduced.

One can see the argument here – without a levy, banks won’t have to pay any tax on their profits for a few years, because they have such gigantic accumulated losses to bring forward. But this isn’t a sensible way for taxpayers to ‘get their money back’ – what we want is for the government to be able to sell off their bank shares as soon as possible, hopefully at a profit. Bank bashing measures just make this more difficult. ASI fellow Miles Saltiel has a more detailed reaction to plans for a bank levy here.

Robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector will be undertaken.

This is ill-advised. The proposals the FSA made on financial sector services last year go far enough. Any additional measures amount to little more than economic populism, and are potentially quite damaging to Britain’s standing as an internationally competitive, major financial centre. It is also worth pointing out – again – that bonuses played no significant role in the financial crisis.

Detailed proposals to make the banking sector more competitive will be brought forward.

This is good news: the obvious place to start is to reduce barriers of entry into the banking sector, so that trusted consumer brands like Tesco can get involved, while also splitting up the nationalized mega-banks as they are returned to the private sector.

An independent commission will examine the case for separating retail and investment banking. It will report in a year.

This idea is worth looking at properly. Opinion among free market economists remains divided.

Responsibility for macro and micro-prudential financial regulation will be transferred to the Bank of England.

This is a good thing, and is something the ASI has called for in a series of reports and briefings on financial regulation. The point though is not just to change the name above the door, but to change the way financial regulation is done. The key is to focus on the big picture instead of box-ticking compliance. Ultimately, sensible monetary reform would be a far better guarantor of financial stability than improved regulation, but that’s a subject for another day.

The government will attempt to ensure the flow of credit to viable small and medium sized enterprises, possibly through a major loan guarantee scheme and net lending targets for the nationalizing banks.

Yes, viable SMEs need access to finance, but government involvement is troubling. Like it or not, the UK economy is hugely indebted and massively overleveraged. We won’t have a sustainable economic recovery until these imbalances have been addressed, and government intervention that has the effect of delaying necessary adjustments may end up causing more pain down the line.

There will be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants allowed to live and work in the UK.

Not sure about this – if people want to work and contribute, I say let them. The free movement of labour is really just an extension of free trade. Of course, there are legitimate social concerns about immigration, and security worries too – but is this the way to address them?

Consideration will be given to bringing forward the rise in the state pension age to 66, but it won’t happen before 2016 for men and 2020 for women. Rules requiring compulsory annuitization at 75 will be scrapped.

OK, but if we’re going to deal with our fiscal problems it would be better to raise the retirement age higher and sooner. Of course that may be a non-starter politically. Getting rid of compulsory annuitization makes sense – it may be the right option for some people, but it isn’t right for everyone. People ought to be free to act in their own best interests.

The Tory welfare-to-work plans will be implemented in full. The receipt of benefits will be made conditional on the willingness to work, and welfare-to-work providers will be paid according to how successful they are in getting back into work.

Excellent – the Wisconsin reforms finally make it to Britain!

The Tory school choice reforms will be implemented. Parents, teachers, charities, churches, companies, etc will be able to set up new schools, and they will receive taxpayer funding on a per-pupil basis. All schools will be given greater freedom over their curriculum.

This was by far the best and most developed policy the Conservatives had in their general election manifesto, so thank goodness it survived the coalition horse-trading. Michael Gove’s ‘supply side revolution’ has the potential to transform British schooling for the better. The only lingering concerns are will new schools be exempt from local authority approval, and will operators be allowed to make a profit (both of which are essential if the necessary numbers of new schools are going to be established)?

A ‘Freedom Bill’ or ‘Great Repeal Bill’ will be enacted. The ID card scheme, the national identity register, the next generation of biometric passports, and the Contact Point Database will be scrapped. Traditional civil liberties will be restored.

Music to my ears!

Fixed term parliaments will be established. This means that the next general election will be on the first Thursday of May in 2015, unless 55% of both Houses of Parliament vote to dissolve before then.

This is a probably a political requirement of coalition government – it prevents the Conservatives from trying to stitch up the Liberal Democrats by calling an election whenever it looks like they could get an overall majority. The downside of fixed election dates is that they tend to lengthen the campaign phase of the political cycle – something most of us could do without!

Legislation will introduce fewer and more equal sized parliamentary constituencies, and ensure a referendum on the Alternative Vote.

A fairer distribution of seats is an essential reform, and I’m relaxed about a referendum on the Alternative Vote. I still think the most important quality of an electoral system is that it allows you to change governments, rather than that it ‘accurately reflects the views of voters’ (which, as any public choice economist will tell you, would never happen anyway). Moreover, I suspect that the Alternative Vote would force politicians to cluster even more around the centre ground, and may drive politics to become even more shallow and personality-driven. So sticking with first-past-the-post would be my preference, but I’m open to persuasion. After all, the Alternative Vote doesn’t seem to have thrown up too many problems in Australia.

A committee will be set up to bring forward proposals on introducing a mainly or wholly PR-elected House of Lords, with members serving a single long term. This committee will report by December this year.

As it stands, the unelected House of Lords does a far better job of protecting our liberties than the elected House of Commons. Might that quality of the Lords be lost in the introduction of elections, especially if those elections are based on a party list system, leading to the Lords being stuffed full of party apparatchiks? Most likely, yes. On the other hand, there are clearly inadequacies with the current system and the impetus for change is strong. What matters is that any changes deliver a House of Lords that is more willing to stand up to government, better able to scrutinize legislation, and more effective at protecting liberty than the current one, and not less. How they might be done is a subject for another time, but this is clearly the test that any changes to our constitutional arrangements should be judged.

Voters will get the right of recall: a petition signed by ten percent of an MP’s constituents will trigger a by-election (assuming the MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing).

Good, although this does seem a case of closing the gate after the horse has bolted. I can’t see the right of recall be used all that much in future (even if it would have been very useful during the expenses scandal). And of course, who judges whether an MP has been engaged in serious wrongdoing or not?

A House Business Committee will be put in charge of Parliament’s timetable, to ensure that the legislature is properly able to hold the executive to account.

This is an excellent idea. Over the past couple of decades the executive has come to utterly dominate the legislature. Any measures to reverse this trend are welcome.

A commission will be established to consider the ‘West Lothian question’.

Fine, as long as the issue doesn’t get kicked into the long grass. I think the time has come for England to have its own Parliament.

The Calman Commission’s proposals will be implemented, and the Welsh will be offered a referendum on further devolution.

As I’ve written before, the Calman Commission’s proposals are a complete dog’s breakfast that would do very little to increase Scotland’s fiscal autonomy or to encourage more prudent expenditure. A much better idea would be to keep National Insurance and VAT as UK taxes, and devolve everything else to Holyrood. As for greater devolution in Wales: no objections here.

An agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding will be pursued, with the aim of removing ‘big money’ from politics.

When they say big money, I have a funny feeling the mean trade union money – i.e. Labour money. But party politics aside, I’m not convinced the further regulation of political donations is either necessary or desirable. And under no circumstances would I be willing to contemplate state funding of political parties (which would further insulate our political class from the real world). Unfortunately this is likely to be the direction in which banning ‘big money’ would take us.

Power will be radically devolved to local government, which will be given greater financial autonomy. There will be a full review of local government finance.

This is good stuff, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Now that they have finally got their hands on a bit of central power, the Liberal Democrats may cool about giving that power away to local authorities. And I suspect the Tories will be very wary about making any changes to local government finance – the words ‘poll tax’ don’t provoke happy memories. If decentralization does go ahead, the government should start abolishing the regional tier of government and redistributing its powers to the local level. The next step is to give local authorities real policy freedom in the areas they are responsible for. Then they should be made as fully self-financing as possible.

A high-speed rail network will be established, the third runway at Heathrow will be canceled, and no new runways at Gatwick or Stansted will be allowed. We won’t get any new nuclear power stations, but we will get lots of new environmental legislation.

It’s a shame to finish on a negative, but this has the main area of concern in the coalition agreement – a great multitude of sins are being proposed under the cover of ‘making Britain a low carbon economy’. Most of them are likely to increase prices for consumers, encourage more businesses to rent-seek rather than engage in entrepreneurial activity, and significantly decrease our energy security. High-speed rail is likely to cost a lot and fail to deliver corresponding benefits, while not allowing new runways is likely to make life even more difficult for British travelers.

5171
reflections-on-the-coalition-agreement

An emergency budget will be held within 50 days, and will announce £6bn of cuts in the current financial year, and outline a deliverable long-term plan for “significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit”, mainly through spending cuts. A full spending review will be initiated, and will report in the autumn. Full strategic and defence reviews will be held at the same time. However, NHS spending will increase in real terms every year, the target to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid will remain in place, and a significant ‘pupil premium’ for disadvantaged pupils will be introduced.

This is good, but is it enough? I appreciate that cutting public spending in-year is tricky (like a big ship, government takes a while to change direction) but I am sure that bigger year-1 savings are both possible and desirable, given the state of the UK’s public finances and the disaster unfolding elsewhere in Europe. Moreover, saying you will significantly accelerate deficit reduction is not the same as pledging to eliminate the budget deficit over the course of the parliament, which is the promise I hoped the new government would make. And it is disappointing to see that NHS and international development spending is still ring-fenced – there should not be any sacred cows. Nevertheless, this is a step in the right direction and it is the job of organizations like the Adam Smith Institute to drag the government towards real fiscal responsibility.

Reductions will be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners.

Good – the Child Trust Fund is a pointless gimmick, and when money is tight it makes sense to target resources on the most needy.

There will be a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with stated longer-term objective of raising it to £10,000.

Excellent – the ASI has been pushing for this for ages, and it is great to see steps being taken in this direction.

That means no increase in the thresholds for employee NI (as Tories originally pledged), but the increase in the thresholds for employer NI will go ahead as planned.

Well, that’s a bit of a disappointment, but the rise in the income tax personal allowance more than makes up for it. Stopping the rise in employers’ contributions is the really important bit, so it’s good that didn’t fall by the wayside in negotiations. Cont'd...

Read More
Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Blogs by email